My (non-falsifiable) theory about introversion

[Tannhauser]

People are not born with behavioural traits like having propensity to choose seats farthest away from the centre of the room or whatever – that is instead a consequence of the following:

Some people are born with a higher intellectual- and/or emotional sensitivity. When you have that sensitivity, and you engage with people around you, you realise that they lack the same sensitivity, and talking with them is like having a dog barking in your face. Therefore, eventually, as a defence mechanism you learn to put up walls around you, so as to not constantly suffer these attacks on your mind and emotional apparatus.

From that, all the typical 'introverted' behavioural traits follow.

What do yall think?

Edit: actually, a better theory is that this is the case regardless of whether you are born with this sensitivity or not – you might develop it at any point, and then suffer the consequence of becoming introverted. As a personal anecdote, that would explain why I became much more introverted in my teens than I was as a child: the development of an intellectual sensitivity.

2nd edit: this theory would even generalise Jung's idea of introversion as an "inward orientation" – because that is, again, another defence mechanism.

 

[Sinny91]

I agree, and like your barking analogy.

 

[nanook]

sure, introversion means dealing with the subjective factor. that's just another word for sensitivity, or so it seems. but then you have to differentiate that word from the sensitivity of extroverts, because they aren't exactly dull either. and sometimes introverts appear more dull, as they step on someone's toe, due to not respecting the objective world sufficiently. ain't nobody got time for that. it's a big fucking mess and there is no solution, when we try to translate a complex evolved picture of reality into a more simple old language from a more simple world-view. typology is the solution for that. new language for new phenomena, observed by newly evolved brains. it can't be explained away with old language, reduced to the world-view of old brains.

 

[Urakro]

I like your hypothesis. I wish I could apply it to myself but, unfortunately, mine is caused by paranoia.

But it's definitely, and abundantly clear that other people lack that sensitivity. Many times when I invoke cognitive empathy, I find I would never catch myself doing what they do. I'd never catch myself acting so foolish. Yet still, I can't figure out why I inhibit my behaviour from those actions. For most, I think they just feel really good, like the effects of alcohol. With others, they exhibit some kind of obsessive compulsive need for attention.

Taking a good look around though, I see there is actually some people, though few, right under my nose who also control their impulses well. It's just that they blend into the environment very quietly, thus they're hard to spot.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Stop barking y'all, i'm trying to be the coolest in the room here.

I think you're right. Your idea is basically that we are born without an extraneous benchmark for normal thus without innate behaviors related to escaping people; those are instead learned, and if there weren't any dogs around to bark, "introverts" wouldn't learn to fear, avoid and be introverted...? That's exactly what i think will happen with better gene tech.

But one must ask why introverts wouldn't have innate introversion-seeking behavior though? I mean, other people barking has obviously been an environmental constant for all of human evolution, and getting away from them to do ones thing would have been advantageous all along, right?

 

[Tannhauser]

... if there weren't any dogs around to bark, "introverts" wouldn't learn to fear, avoid and be introverted...?

Yes, I think so. It would then also make sense that introverts can become quite extroverted when they engage with a person equally or more introverted than them (this I think is true for many, and certainly for myself) – because that is a situation where they don't feel an assault on their intellect/emotions.

But one must ask why introverts wouldn't have innate introversion-seeking behavior though? I mean, other people barking has obviously been an environmental constant for all of human evolution, and getting away from them to do ones thing would have been advantageous all along, right?

Not sure what you mean here. As in physically separate oneself from the group? That would obviously pose a huge threat to one's survival in pre-historic times.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Not sure what you mean here. As in physically separate oneself from the group? That would obviously pose a huge threat to one's survival in pre-historic times.

Like your examples. Avoiding the center of attention, feeling attracted to outskirts of gatherings. The behaviors you seemed to be saying are learned rather than innate.

 

[Tannhauser]

Like your examples. Avoiding the center of attention, feeling attracted to outskirts of gatherings. The behaviors you seemed to be saying are learned rather than innate.

Ah I see. Like, if the genetic composition of a child will condition for intellectual sensitivity, why does it not also condition for introverted behaviour? That is certainly an interesting question, but I think it is hard to conceive of genetic variation as one, uniform configuration of a whole human being – especially when it comes to his/her behaviour. One could ask: if a child is born with an excellent genetic composition which conditions it for being beautiful, why does it not also have genes that condition for self-confident behaviour? The behaviour probably has to be a very adaptable mechanism, independent of all the other parts.

 

[Yellow]

I'd go with it, except for the evidence that introversion and extroversion is shown to be correlated with the mother's level of introversion (to match, especially in a baby who is prone to stress).

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

People are not born with behavioural traits like having propensity to choose seats farthest away from the centre of the room or whatever – that is instead a consequence of the following:

Some people are born with a higher intellectual- and/or emotional sensitivity. When you have that sensitivity, and you engage with people around you, you realise that they lack the same sensitivity, and talking with them is like having a dog barking in your face. Therefore, eventually, as a defence mechanism you learn to put up walls around you, so as to not constantly suffer these attacks on your mind and emotional apparatus.

From that, all the typical 'introverted' behavioural traits follow.

What do yall think?

Edit: actually, a better theory is that this is the case regardless of whether you are born with this sensitivity or not – you might develop it at any point, and then suffer the consequence of becoming introverted. As a personal anecdote, that would explain why I became much more introverted in my teens than I was as a child: the development of an intellectual sensitivity.

2nd edit: this theory would even generalise Jung's idea of introversion as an "inward orientation" – because that is, again, another defence mechanism.

That could probably explain introversion in the conventional sense that people these days refer to it by but as for the other sense that introversion is understood, in the sense that Jung intended the word to be used, I don't think it'd explain much but then again, that probably wasn't your aim.

As Nanook pointed out, extraverted individuals can possess a great deal of sensitivity as well though it's oriented differently. In the case of introversion, the attention or libido is directed to within the contents of the psyche whereas in the case of extraversion, it's directed to the external world.

Note that it's possible to be introverted and not particularly self aware because the inner contents of one's psyche don't necessarily have to be tied up to one's sense of self. Similarly, it's possible to be extraverted and very self aware but that self awareness exists in the context or framework of the world at large.

However, I'd like to add that it's very difficult to be an introversion in the sense Jung intended the word to be used in today's world because everywhere today we're kind of forced to be "proactive" and extraverted. Like for myself, I'm introverted but I also enjoy talking to people a lot (the two are not contradictory) but since I'm usually stuck in my head and not proactive, it's hard for me to create those opportunities for myself.

Sometimes I wish I was extraverted so that people could have a better idea of the thoughts that reside in my head. :/

 

[Tannhauser]

As Nanook pointed out, extraverted individuals can possess a great deal of sensitivity as well though it's oriented differently. In the case of introversion, the attention or libido is directed to within the contents of the psyche whereas in the case of extraversion, it's directed to the external world.

Note that it's possible to be introverted and not particularly self aware because the inner contents of one's psyche don't necessarily have to be tied up to one's sense of self. Similarly, it's possible to be extraverted and very self aware but that self awareness exists in the context or framework of the world at large.

But notice that none of these sentences actually mean anything. What does it mean that "extroverts' libido is directed to the external world"?

In my opinion, Jung's concepts are extremely diffuse and vague. What if one is in the middle of the scale? How can one be in the middle way between being extroverted and introverted in terms of Jung's concepts? Is one's "libido" directed sort of sideways between the external and internal world?

In my opinion, by relating it to a general concept of sensitivity, everyone falls along one continuum, which, moreover, is more tangible than Jung's concept of direction of libido.

 

[Black Rose]

In my opinion, Jung's concepts are extremely diffuse and vague. What if one is in the middle of the scale? How can one be in the middle way between being extroverted and introverted in terms of Jung's concepts? Is one's "libido" directed sort of sideways between the external and internal world?

In my opinion, by relating it to a general concept of sensitivity, everyone falls along one continuum, which, moreover, is more tangible than Jung's concept of direction of libido.

If you want to know the difference between Introversion and Extraversion then you can think of Extraversion as an activity like watching television (external) and Introversion as an imaginary friend or imaginary world (internal).

You can do both extraverted and introverted activities in that sense. You can watch candyland on TV and imagine that you are talking to little miss strawberry shortcake who in reality does not exist. That is the in between part because you just switch around the activity. Some kids are completely extraverted, they only watch tv and have no imagination. If you were completely introverted you could not feed yourself and die of starvation so you can be both introverted and extroverted but some people are completely extroverted because introversion is not required for survival.

After I read this thread I came up with more insights into this subject and posted them in my thread. Blarraun doesn't want me to derail threads so often.

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=509151&postcount=15

Extroverted Feeling can be very sensitive as Introverted Feeling so I am not sure sensitive is the right word to use instead of introversion.

 

[Tannhauser]

Extroverted Feeling can be very sensitive as Introverted Feeling so I am not sure sensitive is the right word to use instead of introversion.

But what does it mean for extroverted feeling to be sensitive? When I am talking about "emotional sensitivity" I have of course not defined what I mean by "emotional sensitivity" yet, and I don't necessarily mean it to be read in the literal way. I am thinking more of an example like Van Gogh, when he looked at a tree and was "feeling" it so much that he saw it as a huge flame. Or when he looked at the night sky and saw it as water full of currents, with stars like huge discs of light (I am talking about "Starry Night"). Could an extrovert have this level of emotional sensitivity? I just happen to think that this is not the case (I actually know an ESFJ-ish person who thinks she is an artist, but has never produced anything close to art which conveys that type of emotional sensitivity). I think you need to be an extreme introvert to do that.

And note that now we could ask: was Van Gogh an extrovert, since his "libido" was oriented towards the world when he painted? That would explain absolutely nothing about his behaviour, whereas framed in the concept of emotional sensitivity, his behaviour would be explained to a high degree.

 

[QuickTwist]

Ah I see. Like, if the genetic composition of a child will condition for intellectual sensitivity, why does it not also condition for introverted behaviour? That is certainly an interesting question, but I think it is hard to conceive of genetic variation as one, uniform configuration of a whole human being – especially when it comes to his/her behaviour. One could ask: if a child is born with an excellent genetic composition which conditions it for being beautiful, why does it not also have genes that condition for self-confident behaviour? The behaviour probably has to be a very adaptable mechanism, independent of all the other parts.

Apples and oranges. One the one hand you are saying that introversion is a reaction and on the other you are saying we have dna that dictates how we behave. Could you clarify?

 

[Black Rose]

But what does it mean for extroverted feeling to be sensitive? When I am talking about "emotional sensitivity" I have of course not defined what I mean by "emotional sensitivity" yet, and I don't necessarily mean it to be read in the literal way. I am thinking more of an example like Van Gogh, when he looked at a tree and was "feeling" it so much that he saw it as a huge flame. Or when he looked at the night sky and saw it as water full of currents, with stars like huge discs of light (I am talking about "Starry Night"). Could an extrovert have this level of emotional sensitivity? I just happen to think that this is not the case (I actually know an ESFJ-ish person who thinks she is an artist, but has never produced anything close to art which conveys that type of emotional sensitivity). I think you need to be an extreme introvert to do that.

And note that now we could ask: was Van Gogh an extrovert, since his "libido" was oriented towards the world when he painted? That would explain absolutely nothing about his behaviour, whereas framed in the concept of emotional sensitivity, his behaviour would be explained to a high degree.

In Fe the sensitivity is going from the outside to the inside where Fi the sensitivity is going from the inside to the outside. The involvement is really in the sustaining of the feeling. Fe forgets the sad movie it just saw and goes on to another movie that is happy. Fi will see one movie and contemplate it for a long time. Fi focuses on one thing so its involvement is intensive not extensive. I think you can distinguish extensive sensitivity from intensive sensitivity. One is fast and the other is slow.

 

[Tannhauser]

Apples and oranges. One the one hand you are saying that introversion is a reaction and on the other you are saying we have dna that dictates how we behave. Could you clarify?

Well, no, I am saying exactly that DNA doesn't dictate how we behave, but that behaviour is mostly shaped by our experience. As Bronto pointed out, it is then possible that if an "intellectually sensitive" person were born into a tribe of people who were the same, it is possible this person would not develop all the quirks that are related to the typical "introverted" behaviour.

So actually, the theory is not as "non-falsifiable" as I thought, it can possibly generate falsifiable hypotheses.

Edit: this notion actually explains a problem I have thought of many times: how does it make evolutionary sense that some people are "born" introverts? If one looks at introversion as an adaptive behaviour, aimed at maintaining the psychological well-being of the individual, it all makes perfect sense.

 

[rainman312]

This hypothesis reminds me of Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration, particularly overexcitabilities. Have you read about it at all? I think you'd find it quite interesting. He expands the concept of sensitivity to emotional and intellectual development.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Besides the studies that suggest I/E to be genetic to some extent, I have two sons who are INTJ and ESTP. The difference was unmistakable from infancy. As babies, my INTJ was very comfortable playing on his own while my ESTP constantly sought my or other children's attention. (It was exhausting!) ESTP said when he was older, he would feel very anxious and uncomfortable left alone. The INTJ always observed first a new social situation (like first day of school) and would easily jump in after he acclimated to the group while ESTP jumped in the fray without hesitation. The INTJ seemed rather social but as he matured, his introversion became more pronounced.

I don't necessarily think it's a jump that I/E is genetic and that some other factor such as sensitivity has to mediate. We observe behaviors that suggest either I or E so that genetics doesn't predict behavior but an orientation. I suppose it could be likened to gender identity?

 

[Tannhauser]

This hypothesis reminds me of Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration, particularly overexcitabilities. Have you read about it at all? I think you'd find it quite interesting. He expands the concept of sensitivity to emotional and intellectual development.

Seems very interesting indeed. Will check it out.